Share this

The deficit commission findings and talk of a tax cut compromise raise questions about how much President Obama is willing to compromise with congressional Republicans. What kind of Democrat will President Obama be? Will he need to make a choice between liberals and moderates heading into the 2012 presidential campaign?

President Obama ran for president on a reform agenda with a centrist pro-business slant. The success of this administration depends on fulfilling the promise of that. It is not about siding with anyone, it is about leadership. Our future depends on it.

Walter DellingerAttorney, O'Melveny & Myers; former Office of Legal Counsel head and acting solicitor general :

The Simpson-Bowles recommendation could be of enormous benefit by providing a vital baseline for public discussion of the deficit - if the press will keep everyone's feet to the fire. We will confront these critical issues in a responsible way if - and only if - the media holds everyone to a "zero-sum commentary requirement". If, after an opportunity for study, you criticize any part of the proposal, you must state how you would replace the proposal you want to jettison. Anyone criticizing a part of the proposal should literally be laughed off the public stage if they fail to propose an alternative or to argue in defense of a deficit number than the proposal would achieve.

Bowles and Simpson have put on that table a proposal would bring the deficit down to 1.6% of GDP by 2020. You could say, "I'm for keeping the full home mortgage interest deduction and I would replace that proposal by (1) tolerating a 2020 deficit of 2.5% (or whatever it would be) (2) raising a different tax by an offsetting amount or (3) cutting spending elsewhere." (Suggestion in the form of "further reductions in discretionary spending" or "greater defense spending cuts" should not count as an argument unless you propose specific programs or weapons systems you would eliminate.)

Using the recommendation as a base line for discussion does not suggest any particular policy outcome. Some will come forward, as Dean Baker has done, and argue, for example, that the deficit should be larger than Simpson and Bowles propose. But having a base line means that if you want to cut the deficit down by a certain amount, you ought to show precisely how you would offset any proposal you want to eliminate.

Surely someone can come up with a computer application that would allow everyone to input adjustments to the Bowles-Simpson plan and see their effect: if you want to keep the mortgage deduction, how much higher would you have to raise the Social Security retirement age to offset that, or how much greater a deficit would you have to tolerate as a result, etc. For the first time we have a concrete plan that provides the basis for an honest discussion.

Conservatives outnumber liberals two-to-one, according to this year’s exit polls, so there is no path to success for the president without winning a supermajority of moderate voters and finding a way to reverse the flight of independents. The center of the country wants fresh-thinking, pragmatic and non-ideological solutions; they see a role for government but are deeply skeptical of its effectiveness; and they believe that opportunity and wealth are driven far more by the private sector than government. That means, for both political and policy reasons, the party has to make a fundamental shift from focusing mostly on economic security and an ever-larger government entitlement state, to an obsession over private sector economic growth. And to liberals who say you cannot be bold and moderate, yesterday’s deficit commission report is about as bold, future-oriented, serious and gutsy as politicians, including retired ones, can get.

President Obama works with many points of view, he didn't get elected because he was an extremist! He will listen to the points of view and take some of both and move forward, he will not choose one or the other.

Governing involves compromise, especially when no group can command a reliable majority. Almost by definition, everyone will be dissatisfied to some degree and the purists on both sides more than others. I think the key is to recognize that this is a negotiation and to act like it. Don’t give in too soon. And when you do, get something for it.

In the first two years, it has sometimes seemed as if the administration was bargaining with itself, anticipating what position the Republican would take and meeting them part-way there before even engaging them in a dialogue.

Now that Republicans will have more clout than before, they will also bear more responsibility for the outcome than during the first two years. So, stake out a position and indicate a willingness to compromise, but don’t do it until the Republicans say, “Okay, if you meet us this far, we will vote for the bill.” Make them take a position for something; then say, we won’t give you all of that, but if you will settle for this much less, we will agree to it, as well.

Doing arithmetic is not timid; quite the opposite, in fact. Denial is never a path to courageous leadership. Bowles should be praised for his leadership on fiscal reform, which is a contribution not only to the future of his president and the future of his party, but more importantly, to the future of our country.

President Obama, like any other Democratic president, will have to balance between liberals and moderates. Let there be no mistake, however; the president is firmly in the contemporary liberal camp of the Democratic Party, and to the extent that he moderates his actions, it will be because the politics of the situation necessitate moderation, not because the president likes moderating, or because moderation agrees with him ideologically.

President Obama has never been the fire-breathing lefty his static critics make him out to be. He may support new green energy protocols but also supports mountain top removal of coal and deep water oil drilling. He may support campaign finance reform but also excused himself from accepting campaign limits on spending in 2008. He may have supported universal health care reform but he also never campaigned and hardly supported single-payer as a national solution.

This last is a good example of my friends on the left's unusual disillusionment with Obama. "Did you vote for Barack Obama," I ask them. Yes, they say. "Then you did not vote for single-payer," I say. I did, they say. "But Barack Obama never campaigned on single-payer," I say. Why? Because he's not that kind of Democrat. He's a get legislation passed and fix it later kind of Democrat. He's a Ted Kennedy kind of Democrat. An advance the cause kind of Democrat.

The White House is set to accept Republicans’ demands that the Bush-era tax cuts for high income earners be extended at least temporarily, senior adviser David Axelrod told the Huffington Post in an interview.

Is this a sign that the Obama White House "gets" the election results that swept Republicans into power in Congress, governorships and state legislatures? Would Democrats view a permanent extension of all Bush-era tax cuts as a betrayal of core principles? Or is it a concession to new political realities?

Perhaps one of the bigger messages no one wants to “get” is that the new normal in our economy has shifted the middle class upwards to include people making $250,000 to $500,000 a year. But caving on eliminating the tax cut for those above that threshold seems another smack in the face to the middle and what was once the middle class.

Two short years ago, this president was brilliant articulating our economic weak spots and America rallied to his side in a landslide. But brilliant words won’t fix this economy and most of us are hoping Democrats will stand tall and deliver the bold and restorative plan of action promised. That’s the takeaway I hear from my constituents.

From where I sit in my little part of America, reducing the deficit and the unemployment rate are key. But changes shouldn’t be balanced on the backs of an already struggling America – like eliminating the mortgage tax deduction. Take that idea off the table until a strong economy is delivered.

Start with the reforms Democrats campaigned on two years ago – reform the corporate tax code and trade laws to slow job outsourcing and create jobs here, eliminate offshore tax shelters, and cut defense spending starting with private contractors who are paid much better than our troops. I think the American public would be delighted with a president and Congress marching together in this direction.

If Social Security is to be part of the conversation, then please clarify that it is not now nor should it ever part of the budget. Remove the cap completely and lower the rate to pre-Clinton days. Require that all wage earners pay into the system on all wages earned. Those changes alone should be adequate to keep Social Security healthy long into the future. As a sole practitioner with dual roles as employer and employee, my contribution is 12 percent - 6 percent as employer, 6 percent as employee – on top of the federal income tax I’m responsible to pay. A lower Social Security rate certainly would be a welcome relief and incentive for small businesses trying to stay afloat.

That’s the change America bargained for two short years ago. I hope Democrats will remind themselves that’s what we promised. If they forget I suspect we’ll all be looking for work in two short years from now.

There is no "getting" the election results, as the polls demonstrate, other than the economy must be front and center. The White House -- and I realize I am sounding rather repetitive -- needs to double down to stimulate consumer confidence through deeper tax cuts to the middle class. You can't have any semblance of deficit reduction without restoring tax rates on the wealthiest Americans -- I hope that the White House really understands this, because that's what middle America "gets" -- that they need help, and the rich continue to get richer.

In a rare triumph of political and economic good sense, President Obama has wisely signaled that he will extend the Bush tax cuts to all Americans. While this capitulation by the White House was more or less inevitable even before the midterm election swept Republicans into office, it's the right move for the administration from both economic and political perspectives.

First, small businesses now enjoy a measure of certainty about their rates of taxation heading into the new year, and can plan accordingly. It was always somewhat astounding that, in a mature capitalist democracy, Americans didn't actually know what level they'd be taxed at less than two months from now; if the Huffington Post report is accurate, they will soon.

Second, for the first time in a long while, and even for the first time since the midterm, the president has indicated he's listening to Americans' concerns, however grudgingly. While being dragged kicking and screaming to the negotiating table hardly embodies the post-midterm triangulation for which President Clinton became legendary (or notorious, to the netroots), it's a good place to start. And while the Left will surely foam at the mouth at what they perceive as another Obama betrayal, the move may mark the beginning of Obama's political comeback.

One other note: you've just gotta love the spin dished out by David Axelrod and hungrily consumed by Howard Fineman and Sam Stein. Axelrod says that by allowing the tax cuts to sunset in 2010, the Republicans in 2001 and 2003 "built in tax increases," while Fineman and Stein assert that "it is the GOP's refusal to separate the categories that has put Obama in this bind." Let's be clear: President Bush and the congressional GOP would have been more than happy to make the tax cuts permanent precisely so that neither Obama nor any future president would find themselves "in this bind" and so that no "tax increases" would be necessary. It was congressional Democrats who insisted on the sunset requirement back in the early 2000's, thus creating the very problem to which Obama is finally now beginning to apply common sense.

This is extraordinary, and demonstrates that the White House learned nothing from the last two years and even less from this election. The cause of the Democrats’ loss in the first place was unemployment, and the reason voters blamed Democrats was (1) the president refused to brand the recession from the start as the natural result of GOP economic policies of the last eight years, namely tax cuts for the rich, deficit spending, and deregulation; and (2) the president caved on the stimulus bill, cut it, and larded it up with GOP tax cuts that had not worked for the prior eight years in an absurd effort to get GOP votes that never materialized.

The result was a half-stimulus that half-stimulated the economy, left 10% of Americans still jobless, and convinced the American public that the stimulus – and future efforts that might be more targeted - was a failure. Beyond that, the tax cuts for the rich are wildly unpopular if you measure them well (i.e., using the actual language that would play out on both sides in a battle for public opinion, rather than asking the bland, barren language of public opinion polling – although they even fare poorly there).

This is politically inexplicable and inexcusably bad public policy. It also eliminates any possibility that Democrats could draw a distinction between themselves as the party of the middle class and the GOP as the party that takes care of the rich and charges the bill to the children and grandchildren of working and middle class Americans. But the president and his senior advisers have proven incapable of understanding what Americans are feeling, unwilling to articulate any vision for moving forward, and uninterested in any principled position on virtually any issue for the last two years, so why start now.

We are not sure, at this point in time, whether the White House has indeed accepted Republican demands. But as I have written, the fact that this argument is occurring on political grounds that favor the Republicans represents a tremendous political victory for the GOP, and augurs well for the realization and implementation of other Republican policy goals.

If Obama doesn't stand up for the Democratic base on ending Bush tax cuts for the rich, then where will he take a stand to remind us that he's still the president? The lesson of the midterms was that the American people want the deficit reduced, and these tax cuts exacerbate the problem. The political reality is that the majority of the American people are opposed to making these tax cuts permanent. It's bad enough we have a lame-duck Congress without the president behaving as though he is also.

The White House has been forced into a corner, and it's too early to tell if they "get it." The extension of tax relief for higher-wage earners and entrepreneurs beats the alternative, though it is certainly not ideal. The economy would turn a major corner if all the tax cuts were made permanent. Confidence would soar among business owners and investors, and capital would start flowing again. Small-business owners and entrepreneurs have been calling for permanency because kicking the can down the road means lingering uncertainty, and eventually fewer resources for hiring and investing. Unlike the federal government that couldn't be bothered with doing a budget this year, our nation's job creators plan two, three, four, five years (or more) down the road.

No doubt the left will be screaming "sell out." A "new normal" has set in and it will be a long two years for those who didn't get the message from the elections.

Amitai EtzioniUniversity Professor and Professor of International Affairs, GW University :

Just another example of the president's way of doing business. First give in 90 percent to show that you are a nice guy. Then give in some more (without getting anything in exchange) to be cooperative. Only this time the "gesture" costs us some $700 billion. Obama needs a Bibi tutorial.

Let me try to get this straight. On the same day that the president's commission on national debt reduction recommends tax increases and severe spending cuts, President Obama agrees to a Republican demand that will increase the budget deficit by billions of dollars over the next 10 years.

Besides being bad policy, the proposal to continue the Bush tax cuts for bankers and billionaires is bad politics. Since the Bush tax cuts benefit wealthy Americans much more than working families, the president's capitulation on this issue sends the signal that we care more about the rich than we do the middle class. FDR must be spinning around in his grave at Hyde Park. Will this concession help Democrats win back the allegiance of the blue and pink collar workers in the industrial Midwest who deserted us in droves last week? I don't think so.

And why did the president raise the white flag on this issue before the fight in Congress starts in the lame duck session next week? Shouldn't the president have extracted a concession from the Party of Tea before the surrender? If this is the way that the president will play poker with John Boehner next year, the new speaker will own the White House by Memorial Day.

It's bad enough that the Tea Party has taken control of the House. It will be even worse, if Democrats roll over and give up without a fight.

If the White House is so willing to acquiesce to Republicans' demand regarding the Bush-era tax cuts for high-income earners being extended permanently, you can bet your “sweet bippy” they are planning on, or have already negotiated, a compromise in return that will be unacceptable to the tea party conservatives who worked hard to put conservative Republicans in office. No doubt this concession, if made, will be used to blame Republicans for not caring about the large deficit, future inflation, the poor and to further class envy. Remember ... we're only two years away from the next presidential election.

Call me crazy, but one of the main messages conveyed at the polls last week was that Americans want to significantly bring down the ever-swelling federal budget deficit. By extending the Bush-era tax cuts to the economic fat cats of our society, President Obama is making that laudatory goal all but impossible as his “concession” will cost $700 billion in the next decade. “Yes we can” doesn’t mean performing the moral equivalent of the kowtow to those who Theodore Roosevelt once called the “malefactors of great wealth.”

It is surprising because it does not seem to be politically savvy; the president would have won almost as many plaudits from moderates for agreeing to a two-year extension, and would have avoided much of the adverse fallout he will undoubtedly receive from his base on the left for agreeing on a permanent extension. It is welcome because permanent changes in tax rates have the largest immediate effect in stimulating investment.

Somehow, this announcement seems too good to be true; I am waiting to see if there is a hidden quid pro quo, like "the president will accept permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts, but only if Republicans agree not to challenge any part of Obamacare." I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.

If true, this is an outrageous betrayal of the people who put Obama in office. Our country is in serious financial trouble and the very wealthy, who hold a large and rapidly growing share of the nation's income and wealth, must do their part. If we are asking those at the bottom to do with less, why not those at the top? What does the White House get? That the rich will buy elections if they don't get their way?

Polls have not shown that Americans want an extension of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This is more of a concession to Republicans, and a sign that Democrats are on the defense, than to public opinion. Many Democrats will be quite upset if this is the decision. Like with much of the counterterrorism program, President Obama will accept yet another pillar of President Bush’s agenda.

It is not that much of a surprise to see the White House beginning to tailor its message as a result of the election returns. They actually aren’t as tone deaf as everyone suggests. No one who is successful in politics could be.

It may be that they have decided that allowing tax rates on the middle class to go up, especially in this bad economy, would be certain death for them in the 2012 elections. They may also have concluded that the only way to get what they want is to agree to an extension of the whole package. It is unlikely that they’ve given up entirely on the idea of class warfare. It is also likely that they are trying to position themselves on what they think the right side of the issue is politically while depending or expecting that Harry Reid and the Democratic majority in the Senate will keep the extension from going through intact. We have to wait and see if they are willing to walk the talk or not and how much pressure they are willing to put on Democratic senators to get the 60 votes likely needed to get the extension of the current tax rates on the Senate floor for a vote.

If this true it cannot possibly have anything to do with President Obama "getting" the results of the election since there is no evidence whatsoever that voters opposed candidates because they were against tax cuts to the rich.

It more likely means that President Obama wants to get more money from wealthy campaign contributors and that he is tired of catching flack from the media outlets that carry water for them.

Obama caving on the high income tax cut issue guarantees that he will attract an intra-party opponent from the progressive wing of the Democratic party. A challenge by a credible candidate, say Howard Dean or Russ Feingold, would ensure his defeat (if nominated) in ’12, see, Kennedy v. Carter in 1980.

The White House misreads the mood of the country. Tea partiers do not reflect that mood. Independents and Democrats disenchanted with Obama’s lack of conviction do.

What is the old saying about being a day late and a mile short? Just as Bush waited until his party lost Congress to sack Rumsfeld, Obama and his team, after waging class war for more than a year and slandering the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, seem willing to accept the argument that raising taxes on anyone in bad economic times is unwise. And they waited for the president to be abroad -- and at an economic summit -- to announce it.

How many defeated Blue Dog Democrats would have won had the administration made this move earlier?

Tell me again why Obama keeps Axelrod around. It cannot be because of his sage political advice.

Roddy Hatch (guest)
GA:

When this happened to president Clinton in 1994 we all know how he "tactfully" moved to the center on policy and governing. I would say that Clinton was a much better player of politics (i.e., reads the tea leaves better) than Obama. Obama's success isn't from his political ability but, rather, being in the right place at the right time. With that said, I think he will continue to try and govern from the left leading to gridlock.

Tom Genin (guest)
CT:

Unlike many posters to this query, American employees obviously understand the importance of the employer. They see that when the employer suffers financially, that suffering trickles down, just as wealth does. And working Americans, you know, the ones who are paying their way, their mortgage, and their health care, absolutely know that taking money from their boss is definitely not going to help them. Elections are local, and so is money.

John Bentley (guest)
IL:

Obama should fight. The Bush taxes did nothing but become the largest single contributing factor to our national debt and annual deficits in the past 10 years. As for all the fear-mongering about how it would ruin economy, they said the same thing when Clinton did it in 1993 and over the next eight years the economy created 20 million new jobs and we enjoyed budget surpluses. If the GOP is serious about debt, make them prove it on this issue.

Andrew Alderson (guest)
OH:

“He didn't get elected because he was an extremist!” Sen. Mathern, the humor in your statement is in how true it is. President Obama didn’t get elected because he was an extremist; he got elected because he campaigned as a centrist. But last week the Democrats got hammered across the country because the voters now know Obama is an extremist. The question is, will he put aside his extreme liberalism and work with the Republican House? We’ll see.

Jim Wojtasiewicz (guest)
VA:

As Stephen Colbert put it on his show last night, some people think the best way to get out of this economic mess is by keeping things exactly as they are. The Bush tax cuts didn't create jobs and aren't creating jobs. The private sector isn't dynamic at all -- it is slack, indolent, self-pitying and waiting for more handouts from the Republican party.

Jim Johnson (guest)
VA:

Perhaps they ought to talk to CBO who have run the numbers and found that the deficit can be eliminated in 2015 with the Bush era tax cuts by simply capping fed spending at current levels. Sounds a lot simpler.

Linda Conley (guest)
OR:

The left blames Wall Street for the economy's downturn without peering at its beloved pet project, Fannie and Freddie. The left wants higher taxes and stricter regulations on the "fat cats" while expanding entitlements, knowing Wall Street's success is intimately entwined with Main Street's. Revenue increases when the economy is ticking. I applaud Obama should he choose to keep Bush tax cuts benefiting everyone, not simply the "obscene" rich.

Ken Perkins (guest)
PA:

How can Republicans be serious about "reducing the deficit" when they are in favor of adding $700 billion to the deficit so that millionaires and billionaires can keep their 3-4 percent "Bush cut", but also favor reductions in Social Security, Medicare and other services for less well-off people? I guess "sacrifice" to reduce the deficit, like paying taxes, is only for the little people.

Stanley Hirtle (guest)
OH:

Caving in on the Bush tax cuts for the rich is probably the worst thing Obama could do, declaring himself to be irrelevant and have no constituency. There is no evidence that people support the cuts. They were willing to vote for Republicans, for whom tax cuts for the rich are the defining issue, but they had two choices and are unhappy that unemployment continues and that they have gotten so little back from the administration's initiatives.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

Professor Jost believes this is a betrayal of the people who put Obama in office. Actually, it's a betrayal of only some of the people who put him in office - the liberals. Some of the other people - the independents - feel betrayed by his policies over the past two years and have deserted him. Regarding the midterms, Obama "gets it" - but what he gets is that he can't win reelection in 2012 without the independents.

Chris Sells (guest)
AL:

This president is not capable of leadership. It is that simple in a world of complexities. It does not matter if he governs from left, center or right; if one does not have the qualified skills of leadership then who cares where he governs from. All of you members should be smart enough to figure this out. Jon Stewart did when he called the president's approach tepid.

John Murray (guest)
AZ:

Economics 101. The people with the money may use it to expand business or not. If you penalize them you are hurting the economy and everyone in society. Stop using everything for political gain and start caring about the country first.

Stephen Howell (guest)
AR:

If President Obama had reversed all the tax cuts immediately on arriving in Washington and compromised on health care the Democrats would have lost seats but nothing as cataclysmic as what we observed. Obama's back is against the wall in that the only way for him to be reelected is to move to the center and stay there. It would help if he got rid of some of the lightening rods in his administration. He should start with Eric Holder.

Phil Southern (guest)
AL:

The president signaling compromise surely seems to animate the tax and spend peanut gallery. Primal screams of "how do we pay for this" are indicative of deeply held beliefs of the "zero-sum" crowd. Why not? They are only playing with other people's money. Hopefully, President Obama is trying to pay heed to the message delivered by the elections.

Richard Gebo (guest)
FL:

President Obama must realize it is time to stand up for something. Giving in to a tax cut for the rich will doom his election in 2012. The Republicans are making him look weak and he continues to fall into their trap. The Republicans will do whatever is needed to bring the president down in 2012 and the president must realize this and show some leadership or nothing will get done in the next two years.

Mike Gorman (guest)
OH:

The wealthy are going to get hit when the new health care law kicks in yet the liberals still want to nail them on these tax cuts as well? The one thing missing from the liberal argument is those among us who do not work and do not produce. We have second and third generations that have been on welfare and continue to take. That is the real problem, the non-producers among us. Liberals continue to attack the producers?

Jim Porter (guest)
ND:

Republicans have reminded us, in unison, of our terrible accumulated debt. However, the highest priority for the GOP agenda is to extend tax cuts to people with the largest income levels. Permanent tax cut extensions for the wealthy adds more to our debt than the cost of healthcare reform, stimulus package, Iraq war and auto industry loan combined. Why won’t the current administration instead challenge this dichotomy of GOP “core” principles?

Michael McGlothlin (guest)
IN:

So, the argument that the Dems are now making is that extending current policy would exacerbate the debt? In my home when we don't have the money we can't spend it, and we can't print it. At some point, the vast majority of reasonable Americans are going to expect that same level of responsible action from their elected leaders. Until they get it, the tea party will grow, and the blue team will shrink. It's not your money to spend, it's ours.

Daniel Shay (guest)
PA:

The information I've read does not suggest that the president wants to make the tax cuts permanent for top earners. Rather it suggests that he's "willing to talk." Talking is not the same as caving. Especially now that the deficit commission's report has been issued, I'd expect that there will be quite a bit of talking, and the reaction today is just the typical hyperventilation of the A.D.H.D. era of news media.

Moses Carr (guest)
MA:

Cowan suggests the Fiscal Comm. report is the "only game in town." I'm not sure if this is true or not, but if it is, it's incredibly unfortunate, because the recommendations re: Social Security are abominable. I'm so sick of elites solemnly telling the middle class that they need to make sacrifices. What about the tax cuts for the richest 2 percent? Why are those sacrosanct? Class warfare is on, and the rich are wiping the floor w/ the middle class.

Fred Croft (guest)
CA:

It's not the GOP, it's the electorate. Doctrinaire White Houses (both Bush's and Obama's) have been rejected by the voters. Both White Houses expanded governmental powers, and both delivered lower standards of living, high unemployment, and a decreased role in the world. If "rolling the White House" means shifting gears and giving the voters what they want, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Craig Vale (guest)
FL:

Obama's abysmal failure to govern and his continued capitulation to the opposition has driven me to consider voting in a Dem primary runoff should a viable opponent emerge. I can see a scenario wherein Hillary leaves office in the last year of the current administration and positions herself to run in a primary. Her bonifides having been greatly enhanced by her tenure as Secretary of State will make her electable too!

Doug Shelledy (guest)
TX:

Obama and the Dems raised spending by more than $70 billion a year. So it is disingenious at best for the liberal right to claim that this will add to the deficit. Uncollected revenues do not add to the deficit. Why do Dems love class warfare? Obama was to be a uniter.
Also a shout out to Martin Frost - a sensible response. Extend them all for 1 year and address it as part of the larger tax/spending issue.

Charles Waddell (guest)
GA:

Let the tax cuts expire as was the original intent. A lot of the middle class will not be affected since they are out of work and have no income to pay taxes on anyway.

Ernest Frazier (guest)
IL:

If this is true, I have no reason to believe in this president anymore. I don't bow to pundits, political opposition or otherwise. I believe the president and Axelrod speaks for him. This is unsustainable, weak and unbelievably short-sighted. There is still a lame duck session and Dems still have control. I hope that Pelosi continues to have the steel spine she's shown for two years and stand up for us. The White House clearly isn't.

Tim Gorman (guest)
KS:

Where are all these people hollering about the wealth gap today coming from? The top 1 percent today hold about 35 percent of the total net worth in this country. That's the same as it was in 1965! Even the financial wealth of the top 1 percent is exactly where it was in 1983! This is nothing more than typical liberal class warfare -- demonization of the rich. Class warfare solves nothing, it is a distraction. When will the liberals learn this?

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.